Digital vs Conventional Camouflage
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
I looove the sofa picture!!! 
nfloorl:
Grandma would be proud...
http://www.fototime.com/99B529677144E32/orig.jpg
As for making every uniform an individual peace of clothe.
Why?
Nobody is going to notice that.
nfloorl: Grandma would be proud...
http://www.fototime.com/99B529677144E32/orig.jpg
As for making every uniform an individual peace of clothe.
Why?
Nobody is going to notice that.
Yes - and it is standard issue now.
Got them - 4 high, 2 low.As Walyander said, ACU works perfectly on bare rocks. But bare rocks is not really the kind of terrain that most soldiers work in.
ACU in perfection. There are 6 soldiers in the pic, you find them all?
And then there is this stupid sofa-picture.
€dit/ @chino: They're both the same, it's just different light, different camera mode, different grade of being washed down or covered by sand etc. that makes them look different.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
HAHAHAHA i diddn't see the guy's head behind the M240 hahahaha, Blonde moment.Got them - 4 high, 2 low.
Conventional camo works just fine. Here's a nice picture I took during my conscription.As Walyander said, ACU works perfectly on bare rocks. But bare rocks is not really the kind of terrain that most soldiers work in.
ACU in perfection. There are 6 soldiers in the pic, you find them all?
And then there is this stupid sofa-picture.
€dit/ @chino: They're both the same, it's just different light, different camera mode, different grade of being washed down or covered by sand etc. that makes them look different.
(sorry for my ugly "marks")Nine people is on the range.
::shudderConventional camo works just fine. Here's a nice picture I took during my conscription.
Nine people is on the range.
Um yeah... I was looking again and I found there's actually ten guys in the picture. Sorry.
That's the swedish splintercamo in a "perfect" environment. Also, now there's two guys in green.The green one is not fair!!!!
I guess you all get the point.
Digitital Camoflage
Greetings,
You are correct, if you don't have the right colour pallet then the camo of course will not work at all. We in the Canadian Forces have adopted a similiar pattern, the digital camo is supposed to make it hard to focus on, in fact when you have a correct colour match it is much more effective than older styles of cam. There are also features that you cannot see, the IR signature is very much reduced. This is a result of the high tech fabric and coatings. We are even limited in the types of badges we can put on, they must be approved, so that the IR signature is not compromised!
Griff
"Flexibility is the key to Airpower. The key to flexibility of course is - indecision!"
Greetings,
You are correct, if you don't have the right colour pallet then the camo of course will not work at all. We in the Canadian Forces have adopted a similiar pattern, the digital camo is supposed to make it hard to focus on, in fact when you have a correct colour match it is much more effective than older styles of cam. There are also features that you cannot see, the IR signature is very much reduced. This is a result of the high tech fabric and coatings. We are even limited in the types of badges we can put on, they must be approved, so that the IR signature is not compromised!
Griff
"Flexibility is the key to Airpower. The key to flexibility of course is - indecision!"
SteadyMercury
New Member
Agree with Griff CadPat (Canadian Dispruptive Pattern) is what Marpat is based off of I remember my Master Corporal talking about the switch, he said they all absolutely hated it at first, thought it looked stupid beyond all belief but once they got out in the field they loved it. So far as I know were even looking at some sort of CadPat boot now as thats the main give away now in our uniforms. The idea of designing Camoflauge to blend in is rather dumb since anything made by a human has some sort of pattern to it and will stand out. Digital camo isn't designed to make you blend in its supossed to make you hard to focus on.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I like the digital camo better I think it looks cool not that it really matters in combat.
ReAl PrOeLiTeZ
New Member
digital camo breaks up the body silhoute better then conventional. it also blends better.
Digital camoflage based on algorithims provids the seeds of their own eventual ineffectivness by switching to algorithims which calculate the Tao, or what isn't there. This always seems to be the problem with complex system approaches to problems. The more complicated, expensive, and extensive the system; the cheaper and more simple the counter-measure (ie Cholbom Armor). One of anything does not fit all and needs to be tailored to the mission environment.
You lost me here mate - what do you mean by "the seeds of their own eventual ineffectiveness by switching to alogarithims which calculate the Tao"?
And what does Chobham armour have to do with this? If you are using it to illustrate fhat Chobham armour is a 'simple' countermeasure to something you have not specified (HEAT? KE penetrators?) I don't think I'd be describing Chobham as particularly simple.
I (along with several other enlisted soldiers in my unit) participated in one of the US Army Natick Labs evaluations of the possible camo patterns to be adopted for the ACU. We each viewed hundreds of sets of photos on a laptop, each one showing a soldier in each of the different camo patterns against different backgrounds (arid, forest, urban, day, night, etc.) and were asked to rate which pattern worked best in each photo set. We were all pretty surprised when the current digital pattern was adopted, since outside certain urban and rocky backgrounds, it did not work that well. I have a sneaky suspicion that the decision had already been made - and it was the one that had been developed "in house". Experience in OIF and especially OEF has shown just how ineffective the current pattern is, and the US Congress has ordered the US Army to adopt a new pattern for use in Afghanistan (and presumably everywhere else eventually). The Army's attempts at saving money by having a "universal" pattern is just going to end up costing them more money as they eventually have to replace all of the uniforms and kit that they have purchased in the current digital pattern.
Rumor mill has it that the Crye Precision Multi-Cam pattern is a strong contender to replace the current pattern as it has already seen use by US Special Operations forces to some extent.
Adrian
Rumor mill has it that the Crye Precision Multi-Cam pattern is a strong contender to replace the current pattern as it has already seen use by US Special Operations forces to some extent.
Adrian
At the height of the Cold War the Soviets tested all NATO camouflage patterns to see, which was the most effective, the Brit camourflage came out on top, which is probably why they haven't opted for digi-cam in their new uniform, but stuck with a version of the same. The rush to change to digital camouflage, which appears all the rage at the moment seems in some instances to be driven by military fashion rather than operational necessity. Everyone's at it and some versions I've seen simply don't work. The US army blue/grey digital cam for one used in A-Stan appears to stick out rather than blend in unless it's covered in dirt! Becomes very apparent in photos when you can visually compare it to the current USMC or Brit issue camouflage in a typical rural setting. Sorry but I don't get it?
I note the Crye Precision Multi-Cam pattern is a non-digital pattern - what goes around, comes around!
I have to admit that I think that digital patterns don't work better, too.
First I don't see much of a difference between a good old style camo pattern and a new digital design just as rik said.
Second in the past when armies wanted to have smaller structured patterns they developed something like the german Flecktarn. I don't see why small digital squares should be better than small classical dots. As if my eye could make out the difference at more than a few meters.
And especially for the US Army adopting different camo patterns for different environments shouldn't be much of a problem.
Heck, armed forces which have a budget like the rest of the world combined are not able to settle on one style of camo pattern with different versions for different environments?
That's ridicoulus. Especially when one sees institutions like the USAF introducing their own pattern.
I ask why? As if there is a need for an air force to have it's own special camo pattern.
The Armed Forces would save alot more money if they would just all buy versions of the same pattern vice versa each one having it's own way with the army having the least effective one...
First I don't see much of a difference between a good old style camo pattern and a new digital design just as rik said.
Second in the past when armies wanted to have smaller structured patterns they developed something like the german Flecktarn. I don't see why small digital squares should be better than small classical dots. As if my eye could make out the difference at more than a few meters.
And especially for the US Army adopting different camo patterns for different environments shouldn't be much of a problem.
Heck, armed forces which have a budget like the rest of the world combined are not able to settle on one style of camo pattern with different versions for different environments?
That's ridicoulus. Especially when one sees institutions like the USAF introducing their own pattern.
I ask why? As if there is a need for an air force to have it's own special camo pattern.
The Armed Forces would save alot more money if they would just all buy versions of the same pattern vice versa each one having it's own way with the army having the least effective one...
IMHO the command of all 4 services are guilty of petty rivalrly and wasting tax dollars on good looks in the field versus providing the best possible equipment. I believe that when all 4 branches utilized the woodland BDU it reinforced the combined arms team concept that was and is so important. I believe 4 distinctly different combat uniforms is counter productive to forging interservice cooperation and certainly doesn't reinforce the combined arms team.